G.R. Nos. 137587 & 138329 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. TEOFILO MADRONIO Y ISIP.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. Q97-69739, finding accused Teofilo Madronio GUILTY of having committed RAPE ( sic ) reasonable doubt, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P75,000.00; and to pay the costs. In Criminal Case No. Q97-69740, finding that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court hereby ACQUITS accused Jun dela Cruz of the crime charged. [15] In his brief, the appellant alleges that the trial court committed the following errors: I THE LOWER COURT ERRED GRIEVOUSLY IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT APPLIED FORCE AND INTIMIDATION AND THEREFORE HE COULD BE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF RAPE. II THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED GRIEVOUS ERROR IN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S SIMPLE DENIAL THAT HE DID NOTHING TO AAA IS SELF-SERVING AND INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE POSITIVE ASSERTION OF AAA. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED GRIEVOUSLY IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT. [16] The appellant avers that the trial court erred in giving credence and full probative weight to AAA's testimony considering her shaky account of the events as they transpired and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. The appellant contends that since AAA had an old hymenal laceration as evidenced by the medical examination report of the NBI Medico-Legal Office, she was no longer a virgin. This belies her claim that she felt pain when the appellant allegedly ravished her. The prosecution failed to prove that he forced and intimidated the victim into having sexual intercourse with him. For one thing, the appellant avers, AAA could have shouted for help since the house where she was brought was small and filled with people, but she did not. The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, avers that it had established all the elements of the crime of rape. It emphasizes that the testimony of the appellant pales in comparison with AAA's positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator and the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. The OSG contends that AAA was intimidated by the appellant when he poked his knife at her and threatened to kill her if she shouted and when he forcibly spread her legs and inserted his penis inside her vagina. With respect to the old hymenal laceration found by Dr. Vertido, the OSG pointed out that, as explained by the doctor himself, it could not be determined when AAA sustained the wound; neither could it be used to determine the number of times she had had sexual intercourse. The contention of the appellant is barren of merit. In reviewing rape cases, we are always guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility - if it is hard to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime in which only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the